What matters is how Pope Honorius's colleagues among the universal college of bishops understood his work...

Right. And they condemned him for different reasons that you give, as was shown not only by the current RC apologist, but by the Roman popes there at the time!:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

So no, it is not just the current RC apologist, as you are trying to sneak in...again.

Right. And they condemned him for different reasons that you give, as was shown not only by the current RC apologist, but by the Roman popes there at the time!:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

So no, it is not just the current RC apologist, as you are trying to sneak in...again.

This looks like nothing more than another modern-day apologist's interpretation of Pope Leo II. Do you have Pope Leo's own words on this? And even if you did, can you tell us why Pope Leo alone should be seen as representative of the mind of the Sixth Great Council?

You tried this before, which means nothing except you realize that it hurts your case. In fact, the same can be said when people claim here that St Maximos' quote are forgeries. Since it hurts your case, they must be fake right?

This looks like nothing more than another modern-day apologist's interpretation of Pope Leo II. Do you have Pope Leo's own words on this? And even if you did, can you tell us why Pope Leo alone should be seen as representative of the mind of the Sixth Great Council?

And also:

In response to Mr. White, it would do well first to recall the words of the council's official condemnation: "The names of those men whose doctrines we execrate [are] . . . Sergius . . . Cyrus . . . Pyrrhus . . . Paul and Peter . . . and . . . Theodore . . . all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome . . . rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius . . . because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines" (Session XIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 343).

Clearly, the council specifies two different categories of offenders that merit the same punishment. To the first group belonged those who the council judged to be " minded contrary to our orthodox faith"-Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, and Theodore. Whatever his fault, Honorius was not judged by the council to be "minded contrary" to the "orthodox faith" and thus cannot be considered a heretic in either the material or formal sense. Instead Honorius was faulted for having "followed [i.e., lent support to] the view of Sergius . . . and confirmed his impious doctrines." That is, by agreeing with Sergius that a rule of silence be imposed, Honorius left Cyrus's false reconciliation of the monophysites in place, and thereby gave practical-not theological-confirmation to the heresy.

The last two undelines are critical, for they obviously state that he was not accused of openly teaching, as you pretend, but was condemned for recommeding silence via a private letter. Why is this hard for you?

If you did not thnk that Honorius only permitted heresy instead of openly teaching, why were you arguing that they were the same thing for a couple of your post. Did you realize that they were not the same thing at some point and then decided to push for that the council claimed that he openly taught the heresy. Isn't this a concession of your point?

Right. And they condemned him for different reasons that you give, as was shown not only by the current RC apologist, but by the Roman popes there at the time!:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

So no, it is not just the current RC apologist, as you are trying to sneak in...again.

What is the specific reference for the quoted text. Usually the title, author, translator, publisher, edition, and seemingly now-a-days the isbn no. page no. referenced... that usually helps. When I see a piece just quoted in a post without the above info how can anyone take any argument serious? Argue all you want, debate all you want but without solid academic reference to the material you are using as evidence in that argument than it is nothing but a bar room squabble.

This looks like nothing more than another modern-day apologist's interpretation of Pope Leo II. Do you have Pope Leo's own words on this? And even if you did, can you tell us why Pope Leo alone should be seen as representative of the mind of the Sixth Great Council?

Also if he openly taught it the heresy, why did no pope utter a word about it for 40 years?:

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.

So you are basing your current argument on an article? Why not base it on your own research with quotes from the original material and maybe then use academic essays from credited people to support your position.

So you are basing your current argument on an article? Why not base it on your own research with quotes from the original material and maybe then use academic essays from credited people to support your position.

Doesn't anyone ever leave the computer and go to a library?

Pope Leo:...was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy.

It does not follow that just because I dont have the orignal document in my hand, that the above is a forgery outright. And we have St Maximos defending the said pope as well. Is this a forgery too?

The council even declared that he was condemned by what was found in a letter.

The bottom line is who do we trust the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.Or the popes infallibility. While you are putting your trust in Papism. Here are some other issues with papal infallibility.

Pope Innocentius IV (1243-1254)

ordained that heretics must be tortured by Inquisitors, although later Popes also approved (with their official seals!) the burning of heretics. This was an official decision of the Papist “Church” that was faithfully upheld for centuries………

It was a sin. No doubt. But to never, ever sin is not what God protects his popes from doing. They still need to go to confessions etc. You're missing the point: what the roman pontif's are protected from is openly teaching heresy. Honorius did not do that. Get it? Even the said council specified this difference, which seems impossible for you guys to understand.

Okay. He was guilty of something, but not teaching it openly. Why? because he did not teach it openly.

If that's true, then why not just agree that Pope Honorius was indeed culpable of the sin of heresy, but that this sin doesn't affect the doctrine of papal infallibility, which is more limited than what the Eastern Orthodox (and some of the more ultramontane elements in the Roman Catholic Church) think it is; instead of continuing to try to jump through all sorts of hoops to deny it?

« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 01:05:22 PM by theistgal »

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

eliminated the names of a number of saints (such as Saint Barbara) from the Latin Book of Saints. With this act, he not only defied the Holy Tradition of the Church, but also his predecessor-Popes!

Um, no. St. Barbara (and others) were removed from the Calendar, but not from the Roman Martyrology. A Roman Catholic priest may still celebrate a mass in honor of the Great Martyr Barbara on her feast day but such a memorial is optional one. She is still recognized as a saint in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 01:39:48 PM by Schultz »

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Um, no. St. Barbara (and others) were removed from the Calendar, but not from the Roman Martyrology. A Roman Catholic priest may still celebrate a mass in honor of the Great Martyr Barbara on her feast day but such a memorial is optional one. She is still recognized as a saint in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.

Huh?Do we have a crossed-eyes emoticon or is that taboo today?

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Unlike what you are trying to portray, there are not millions of forgeries. What is contained in them are substaniated elsewhere. Are you claiming that St Maximos's quote is a forgery?

Nor did I say that there were "Millions" of forgeries. I said that there are many forgeries to the point that they are not a rare exception. The question then remains, why?If there were so many genuine passages then why bother and why bother making so many?

I think the answer is that the Roman claim to Universal Jurisdiction is very weak. It simply does not jive with how the various Sees operated or how the Seven Councils were run. In reality there are not many passages that are genuine that give evidence for Roman Supremacy so they had to churn out fakes that did. The passages that seem to most direcly argue for Roman rulership never seem to hold up under rigorus scrutiny.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

This phenomenon of the post-concilar Roman Catholic Church is best explained here.

Nice try. Saints are added to dates. Not removed. Take for instance today. We have, Euphemia the Great Martyr,The All-Praised Olga, Equal-to-the-Apostles, Princess of KievNektarios the New MartyrSt. Nicodemos the New Martyr of Mt. Athos

Please don't dodge my question by throwing it back at me. Do you have the direct word of Pope Leo II himself on how he viewed Pope Honorius's condemnation? A yes or no answer will do.

Quote

You tried this before, which means nothing except you realize that it hurts your case. In fact, the same can be said when people claim here that St Maximos' quote are forgeries. Since it hurts your case, they must be fake right?

No. You are the one who needs to prove his case here, and all you've done is ramrod the same arguments with the same [second-hand] source citations, hoping that you'll finally override our rebuttals with your own pigheadedness. This doesn't prove anything except that you love to argue.

Nice try. Saints are added to dates. Not removed. Take for instance today. We have, Euphemia the Great Martyr,The All-Praised Olga, Equal-to-the-Apostles, Princess of KievNektarios the New MartyrSt. Nicodemos the New Martyr of Mt. Athos

The fact still remains that no saints were "removed" from anything other than the universal calendar. Priests and laity alike are allowed to commemorate and/or pray to St. Barbara whenever they feel like it. Your posts make it sound like Rome decided that saints such as Great Martyr Barbara are no longer allowed to be commemorated at all and that is patently false.

Do I like this way of dealing with the calendar? Of course not. It seems quite silly to me. However, you don't have to spread half-truths in an effort to disprove Roman primacy. There's plenty of things out there for you to expound on without resorting to this kind of straw man.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

The fact still remains that no saints were "removed" from anything other than the universal calendar. Priests and laity alike are allowed to commemorate and/or pray to St. Barbara whenever they feel like it. Your posts make it sound like Rome decided that saints such as Great Martyr Barbara are no longer allowed to be commemorated at all and that is patently false.

Do I like this way of dealing with the calendar? Of course not. It seems quite silly to me. However, you don't have to spread half-truths in an effort to disprove Roman primacy. There's plenty of things out there for you to expound on without resorting to this kind of straw man.

One day you have a mass entirely in her name and than ceased to venerate Saint Barbara the following year. We see this as a removal. You are free to believe whatever you like too.

One day you have a mass entirely in her name and than ceased to venerate Saint Barbara the following year. We see this as a removal. You are free to believe whatever you like too.

It's no longer a feast day for the entire church but local churches are still permitted to have Masses in her name. Particularly churches named for her - for example, the Santa Barbara Mission in California.

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

This is what I don't understand about Roman Catholicism... they completely broke with their own Apostolic continuity. It wasn't just Saints that was simply 'removed' it was Holy Altars, Relics, Churches, Pieties... all done away with in some attempt to be relevant in the face of modernity. Only 'one' Archbishop sounded an alarm... only one thought it was 'wrong' to break with the Holy Tradition of the West for some novel liturgy. I honestly can't for the life of me understand how such innovation can seize an institution like the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps they are picking up the pieces but it's shocking.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Also if he openly taught it the heresy, why did no pope utter a word about it for 40 years?

If the popes' authority never really meant that much to us, why does it matter?

1. To the Orthodox, there is no higher dogmatic authority in the Church than the ecumenical council, of which we unanimously recognize seven--some of us recognize eight or nine, but that's beside the point. No individual pope or father is greater than an ecumenical council, so if St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius I, whom the Sixth Ecumenical Council later condemned, then the Sixth Ecumenical Council overrules St. Maximos, and St. Maximos must be considered wrong to have defended the heretic. If Pope Leo II offered an explanation of his own condemnation of Pope Honorius that goes counter to the official record of the great council, then we must defer to the infallible authority of the council and recognize Pope Leo's reasoning as merely his own private interpretation of the council's intent, a personal opinion therefore not binding on anyone.

2. Your continued insistence in arguing that Pope Honorius I was condemned for something less than actively teaching heresy really isn't that important except to buttress your argument that the See of Rome was protected by God from ever teaching heresy from the time of St. Peter himself, the underpinning of the Vatican I dogma of papal infallibility. If you're not advocating papal infallibility, then why does the case of Pope Honorius even matter? Seeing that you are advocating papal infallibility, have you become unaware that the necessary foundation for papal infallibility is papal supremacy, something you started to argue from a few select quotes of a handful of fathers but have never established securely. Maybe you would do well to return to this topic, since it is, after all, the subject of the thread's OP.

If that's true, then why not just agree that Pope Honorius was indeed culpable of the sin of heresy, but that this sin doesn't affect the doctrine of papal infallibility, which is more limited than what the Eastern Orthodox (and some of the more ultramontane elements in the Roman Catholic Church) think it is; instead of continuing to try to jump through all sorts of hoops to deny it?

I actually have done what you have said, unless I am misunderstanding you.

The bottom line is who do we trust the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.Or the popes infallibility. While you are putting your trust in Papism. Here are some other issues with papal infallibility.

Pope Innocentius IV (1243-1254)

ordained that heretics must be tortured by Inquisitors, although later Popes also approved (with their official seals!) the burning of heretics. This was an official decision of the Papist “Church” that was faithfully upheld for centuries………

Nor did I say that there were "Millions" of forgeries. I said that there are many forgeries to the point that they are not a rare exception. The question then remains, why?If there were so many genuine passages then why bother and why bother making so many?

I think the answer is that the Roman claim to Universal Jurisdiction is very weak. It simply does not jive with how the various Sees operated or how the Seven Councils were run. In reality there are not many passages that are genuine that give evidence for Roman Supremacy so they had to churn out fakes that did. The passages that seem to most direcly argue for Roman rulership never seem to hold up under rigorus scrutiny.

I have no idea of the quantity of forgeries you are refering to. What does "many" mean?

And no, there are not mountains of them. You cannot just pawn off quotes you dont like because you found some forgeries. I already gave you an exmaple of finding a forgery that had you misrepresented. It does not follow that everything you posted here is automatically a forgery based on the one forgery.

If you want to give me a ratio, we can get a better idea of what you are getting at.

So...botton line: out of the quotes we have in total, how many are forgeries?

Please don't dodge my question by throwing it back at me. Do you have the direct word of Pope Leo II himself on how he viewed Pope Honorius's condemnation? A yes or no answer will do.No. You are the one who needs to prove his case here, and all you've done is ramrod the same arguments with the same [second-hand] source citations, hoping that you'll finally override our rebuttals with your own pigheadedness. This doesn't prove anything except that you love to argue.OBJECTION! Irrelevant question asked with the intent of derailing my inquiry.

Simple... I recognize Constantinople III; I don't recognize Vatican I.If the popes' authority never really meant that much to us, why does it matter?

1. To the Orthodox, there is no higher dogmatic authority in the Church than the ecumenical council, of which we unanimously recognize seven--some of us recognize eight or nine, but that's beside the point. No individual pope or father is greater than an ecumenical council, so if St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius I, whom the Sixth Ecumenical Council later condemned, then the Sixth Ecumenical Council overrules St. Maximos, and St. Maximos must be considered wrong to have defended the heretic. If Pope Leo II offered an explanation of his own condemnation of Pope Honorius that goes counter to the official record of the great council, then we must defer to the infallible authority of the council and recognize Pope Leo's reasoning as merely his own private interpretation of the council's intent, a personal opinion therefore not binding on anyone.

2. Your continued insistence in arguing that Pope Honorius I was condemned for something less than actively teaching heresy really isn't that important except to buttress your argument that the See of Rome was protected by God from ever teaching heresy from the time of St. Peter himself, the underpinning of the Vatican I dogma of papal infallibility. If you're not advocating papal infallibility, then why does the case of Pope Honorius even matter? Seeing that you are advocating papal infallibility, have you become unaware that the necessary foundation for papal infallibility is papal supremacy, something you started to argue from a few select quotes of a handful of fathers but have never established securely. Maybe you would do well to return to this topic, since it is, after all, the subject of the thread's OP.

First off, the council says he was condemned by what was found in a private letter. It does not say that he was condemned by an encyclical meant to openly teach the said heresy.

And you still havent answered why if he did openly teach it, why was the See of Rome silent of this fact?...for 40 years!

It is critical to have the See of Rome contempories view here, in order to get a better idea if it was openly taught. And from what he have, it supports that he did not openly teach the heresy. Now the council condemned him. I agree. But not for openly teaching heresy, as the eastern sees did. Big difference.

What is the specific reference for the quoted text. Usually the title, author, translator, publisher, edition, and seemingly now-a-days the isbn no. page no. referenced... that usually helps. When I see a piece just quoted in a post without the above info how can anyone take any argument serious? Argue all you want, debate all you want but without solid academic reference to the material you are using as evidence in that argument than it is nothing but a bar room squabble.

Btw, you dont have to take my post seriously. I am not going to spend my time traveling the world in order to see the orignal documents, or give you a technical reference page. I have done that in school, and dont feel like doing that here. So if the citation in the quote is not agreeable with you, I am sorry. Keep in mind, this is not school, but a discussion board. What do I owe you?

A lot of our research, yes yours too, is based on our trusting historians. Even if I produced an orignal document 2000 years old, how would you know it not a forgery? I have faith God helps preserve what is true.

I could call into question any document from the past and challenge it. You have no way to 100% prove its a validity.

This does not mean that you cannot see what the contempory popes and St Maximos thought at the time for a better picture?

Quote

If the popes' authority never really meant that much to us, why does it matter?

You're missing the point: the pope's authority mattered to the See of Rome, yet there is nothing said about the said heresy at all in relation to Honorius from anyone during that time in Rome. This means that his letter was not openly taught, but was a private letter that was not an encyclical that addressed the Roman church. And the letter even said to remain silent. If Honorius wanted to teach it openly, why does it say "silent" in the letter?

Just read your own account of the said council. Nowhere will you find it saying that Honorius openly taught the heresy. Everywhere you'll find examples of eastern churches teaching the said heresy. Big difference.

Please don't dodge my question by throwing it back at me. Do you have the direct word of Pope Leo II himself on how he viewed Pope Honorius's condemnation? A yes or no answer will do.

So far, all you've cited regarding what Pope Leo II said about Pope Honorius is an article by Steven O'Reilly in which O'Reilly says that Pope Leo said such and such. The thing is, Mr. O'Reilly doesn't even quote Pope Leo on this; he just says, "Pope Leo did not count his predecessor as one of the 'inventors' of the heresy..." and credits a couple of letters from Pope Leo as his source. Have you read these letters yourself? Can you quote them for us? If you cannot, and all that you can do is tell us how Steve O'Reilly interprets them, then please don't cite these letters of Pope Leo as evidence for your case.

Quote

No. You are the one who needs to prove his case here, and all you've done is ramrod the same arguments with the same [second-hand] source citations, hoping that you'll finally override our rebuttals with your own pigheadedness. This doesn't prove anything except that you love to argue.

For the last few pages of this thread, you have argued quite vocally--roughly half of the posts beginning with your citation of an article by Robert Spencer in Reply #208 are yours--that there is no way Pope Honorius can be considered an active teacher of heresy. The past couple of nights you have spent arguing from another article posted by Steve O'Reilly on the same RC apologetics web site. Clearly you are trying to prove something, which places the burden of proof on you to cite sources that substantiate your assertions. Neither of these articles cites that many actual quotes of the popes and other persons whose material supposedly supports the weight of their arguments. Spencer and O'Reilly both write as if they trust in their readers' first hand knowledge of the primary source material they credit (or as if they expect their readers to trust them at their word). I personally don't think this very convincing. If you really want to convince us of the truth of your word, then you need to start providing for us primary source materials from the fathers themselves to support your point of view. You also need to start citing individuals whom we respect as authorities. Otherwise, your case will be very easily dismissed by your readers here as bearing no substance.

For my defense, I have merely been working with the other posters here to offer rebuttals to your arguments. In the court of public opinion, I'm not aware that I really need to do anything except plant the seeds of doubt that your word is true. Even so, I have made some effort to be somewhat convincing by either quoting primary source documents or at least citing articles that do. The article I posted from William Webster, for instance, included an excerpt several paragraphs long of the official minutes of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and actually prefaced the excerpt with a statement saying, "The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything." Sure, Mr. Webster offered his own interpretation, but he also expressed his hope that his readers could see for themselves what the official record of the great council actually said. I personally think such reference of primary sources more convincing than what you have done thus far.

I personally don't think this very convincing. If you really want to convince us of the truth of your word, then you need to start providing for us primary source materials from the fathers themselves to support your point of view.

Okay, you first. Provide me where in the said council it says that Honorius was condemned for openly teaching the said heresy. Remember- use primary sources. Maybe I'll learn from you here. I am all ears.

Okay, you first. Provide me where in the said council it says that Honorius was condemned for openly teaching the said heresy. Remember- use primary sources. Maybe I'll learn from you here. I am all ears.

Don't play games with me, truth. You are the one with the case to prove, so you provide the sources I asked of you in Replies #353, 378, & 392, or you pull out of this debate right now.

(or as if they expect their readers to trust them at their word). I personally don't think this very convincing. If you really want to convince us of the truth of your word, then you need to start providing for us primary source materials from the fathers themselves to support your point of view. You also need to start citing individuals whom we respect as authorities. Otherwise, your case will be very easily dismissed by your readers here as bearing no substance.

I could say the same about you. You guys earlier tried to say that even Rome condemned the said pope at the council before recognozing in what way they did so! (he was condemned by neglect etc)

You made a positive claim that he openly taught heresy. Where is your proof from that council? These are not games; but rather, fairness.

Since I have already posted this on this thread, I will go ahead and post this excerpt from the record of the Sixth Council, for I think it good to post this alone and without interpretation so that the reader can read it for himself and draw his own conclusions.

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...

Session XVIII:But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).(highlighting mine)

Now, truth, you either provide the primary sources I requested, or you pull out of this debate, for you will get no more proof from me.

No, truth, the next move in this game is yours. You provide the source for which I asked.

My claim is that the said council did not state that Honorius taught heresy openly. Your case is that it does. How am I suppose to prove a negation??

Since your statement is the affirmation of Honorius teaching heresy openly, the burden of proof is yours. If you cannot prove this, then it stands that the See of Rome never openly taught the said heresy.

Since your statement is the affirmation of Honorius teaching heresy openly, the burden of proof is yours. If you cannot prove this, then it stands that the See of Rome never openly taught the said heresy.

This is going from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous - the above is so illogical that it calls into question why this entire thread persists.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

My claim is that the said council did not state that Honorius taught heresy openly. Your case is that it does. How am I suppose to prove a negation??

Quote

Debaters may refer to any information that is within the realm of knowledge of liberally educated and informed citizens. If they believe some cited information to be too specific, debaters may request that their opponent explain specific information with which they are unfamiliar. In the event further explanation of specific information is requested, the debater should provide details sufficient to allow the debater to understand the connection between the information and the claim. Judges will disallow specific information only in the event that no reasonable person could have access to the information: e.g., information that is from the debater’s personal family history.

Since your statement is the affirmation of Honorius teaching heresy openly, the burden of proof is yours. If you cannot prove this, then it stands that the See of Rome never openly taught the said heresy.

Quote

The proposition team (e.g. truth) must affirm the resolution by presenting and defending a sufficient case for that resolution. The opposition team (e.g. Peter) must oppose the resolution and/or the proposition team’s case. If, at the end of the debate, the judge (e.g. Peter - as moderator) believes that the proposition team has supported and successfully defended the resolution, they will be declared the winner, otherwise the opposition (e.g. Peter) will be declared the winner.